Gigantopithecus

A research study published back in June of 2015 provides some interesting information about how Bigfoot may kill its prey. The research was conducted and published by Aaron Mills, Gerald Mills, and M.N. Townsend who discovered three bone piles and track evidence within a 17 mile radius of Mount St. Helen’s in Washington state. Also found were kill sites, animal skull remains, and animal vertebrae remains. What is interesting is scavengers seem to have avoided these sites which suggests the predator(s) may have been close to the areas.

Skulls of elk and deer showed their snouts broken by blunt force trauma and the spinal columns broken also by blunt force trauma. The predator must have been a very large creature in order to do this. No evidence was found of any clubs or weapons used to kill the deer and elk but that’s not unusual as the predator(s) likely reuse their weapons on other kills. In the case of bigfoot I’d say the weapon was likely a very large, heavy branch or rock.

What is interesting is the apparent way in which the elk and deer were killed at these kill sites. It is clear that the predator is an “ambush hunter.” It also appears that the predator first snapped the snout of the animal likely to hinder its breathing if it ran off so it could be easily followed. I think the predator then used the weapon to crack the spinal column into two or more pieces resulting in the death of the prey. Continue Reading

Mainstream anthropology holds the view that once upon a time there was the most gigantic ape that ever lived known as Gigantopithecus blacki. The theory holds that this creature stood an astounding 9.8 feet tall (3 m) and weighed around 1190 lbs (540 kg). This giant ape supposedly lived in China, India, and Vietnam from around 9 mya to 100 kya. Thus this giant ape is placed in the same time frame and geological location as several ancient human ancestors including archaic Homo sapiens.

The first evidence we have of Gigantopithecus comes from 1935 via anthropologist Ralph von Koenigswald who made the first “discovery” of this giant ape in an apothecary shop in China. What he discovered is that fossilized teeth and bones were often ground up into powder and used in Chinese medicine. He found a few teeth in that apothecary and somehow concluded that they must be from some giant prehistoric ape.

Since von Koenigswald’s find FEW fossil remains of Gigantopithecus have been found. Molars have been found in traditional Chinese medicine shops and Liucheng Cave in China has produced several similar teeth and several jawbones. Other sites of find believed to be from Gigantopithecus are located in Vietnam and India.

In 1955 about 47 teeth believed to be from Gigantopithecus were discovered in a shipment of dragon bones in China. These teeth were traced to their source and this led to finding more teeth. More than 1300 teeth were recovered in fact. NOT all find of Gigantopithecus in China have been dated to the same period as some appear to be later in some parts of China.

The fact is that Gigantopithecus blacki is ONLY known from fossil teeth and mandibles found in cave sites in China and Vietnam. No bones have ever been found! No full or partial skeleton has ever been found! The fossilized teeth and mandibles suggest this creature was far larger than modern apes BUT the exact size of it and the structure of its skeleton can only be estimated! I might also mention that in 2014 fossil teeth and a mandible were found in Indonesia and believed to also be from this giant ape. Continue Reading

Fair Use Disclaimer

In Accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, any copyright material on display here is under Fair Use without any claim of ownership or any profit accrued by the display. The Material herein is for non-profit educational or criticism purposes only. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 106 and 106a, the fair use of a copyrighted work including reproduction and distribution of said material as specified in that section, for purposes of education, news reporting, commentary or criticism, scholarship or research, to persons who have expressed a prior interest in receiving such material for such purposes, is NOT an infringement.